Mahlangu v Tee-Eff Supermarket (J130/01) [2001] ZALC 73 (22 May 2001)

Mahlangu v Tee-Eff Supermarket (J130/01) [2001] ZALC 73 (22 May 2001)

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with its order to provide proof of service of the recission application on the CCMA. The respondent's opposition was not substantiated by evidence of proper procedural compliance. Given the applicant's prolonged wait to enforce the award and the respondent's non-compliance, the court determined that the arbitration award should be made an order of court. The court emphasized that employers often delay compliance with awards and oppose enforcement at the last minute, but such conduct will not be condoned absent good cause and procedural compliance.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 73
Parties
Applicant: B A Mahlangu; Respondent: Tee-Eff Supermarket
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2001
Case Number
J130/01
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act
Outcome
The application to make the arbitration award an order of court is granted.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Enforcement, Recission Application, Section 158 1 C, Ccma Procedure
Labour Law Arbitration Award Enforcement Recission Application Section 158 1 C Ccma Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B A Mahlangu

Applicant

Tee-Eff Supermarket

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court Under Section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award in favour of the applicant should be made an order of court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's opposition and purported application for recission justify delaying enforcement of the award.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent complied with the court's directive to provide proof of service of the recission application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with its order to provide proof of service of the recission application on the CCMA. The respondent's opposition was not substantiated by evidence of proper procedural compliance. Given the applicant's prolonged wait to enforce the award and the respondent's non-compliance, the court determined that the arbitration award should be made an order of court. The court emphasized that employers often delay compliance with awards and oppose enforcement at the last minute, but such conduct will not be condoned absent good cause and procedural compliance.

Court Disposition

The application to make the arbitration award an order of court is granted.

Orders

  • The arbitration award dated 20 November 2000 issued by Commissioner L Dreyer is made an order of court.